Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <ukhdge$2phim$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:16:14 on Sun, 3 Dec
> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <3gsjmihrn2o0vvos598s3pt3p069e8c08c@4ax.com>, at 14:56:10 on
>>> Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 14:45:15 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 01/12/2023 09:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Even if I had such a vote, I would not cast it to implement quite such a
>>>>>> broken IT system.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that everybody here agrees with you that the IT system is broken.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apart from the annoyance to people like yourself, it must cause much
>>>>> work within TFL sorting out the mess. And, there's no obvious reason for
>>>>> the slow updates of the fine system.
>>>>
>>>> One word explanation: Crapita
>>>>
>>>> https://www.capita.com/news/capita-operated-ultra-low-emission-zone-
>>>> expansion-launches-london
>>>>
>>>>> Nevertheless, you are going on a bit.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed so, but it's all new and shocking for Roland.
>>>>
>>>> This has actually been going on for years, and has been widely reported
>>>> in the media and in local groups:
>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/owj4ll/psa_your_private_plate_
>>>> can_make_you_car_seem_ulez/
>>>
>>> "they explained that DVLA doesn't give complete information when
>>> it's a private plate so they just make the car non-compliant"
>>>
>>> That's nonsense because TfL got the correct vehicle make and number from
>>> DVLA, which means they could also get the date of first registration,
>>> which confirms automatic compliance (only by six months, but one day
>>> would be sufficient).
>>>
>>> If it's been going on for years, then they've had plenty of time to fix
>>> it.
>>>
>>> I note a recent FOI response from TfL confirming they only update the
>>> database they check ANPR against "once a month", but failed to say when
>>> in the month, or answer the second part of the enquiry which was about
>>> its wider impact on personal plate holders.
>>>
>>> As it happens, my vehicle was issued with a V5 a month and a day before
>>> the alleged offence, and their database wasn't so out of date it had the
>>> wrong vehicle description. So this is a different type of glitch. If it
>>> had still said "Freelander" I'd be going about this quite differently.
>>>
>>> And part of the issue I have is the asymmetry - they say fines must be
>>> paid within 14 days (and in my case the notice spent the first 5 days in
>>> the post), but they give themselves a whole month to issue invalid
>>> notices.
>>>
>>> They also have an absolute deadline of responding to the notice by Xmas
>>> Eve, and although I accept it can be done online, the default is by
>>> post, and it's unclear if a proof-of-posting is evidence of "serving"
>>> the appeal, rather than the date they open the letter (which in any
>>> event they are stunningly unlikely to do on Xmas Eve, Xmas Day, or
>>> Boxing Day).
>>
>> Any entanglement with authorities that have some form of legislative
>> backing to their position is always asymmetric and not in favour of the
>> individual. Just be thankful that you’ve not been accused of a serious
>> criminal offence that you didn’t commit.
>
> Actually, TfL is committing a criminal offence because they are holding
> (and processing) needlessly inaccurate data, and that's a contravention
> of GDPR.
>
I also look forwards to you taking that to court or persuading the
authorities to prosecute. There’s thousands of much more serious
transgressions of GDPR that never go anywhere near a court room.

In message <ukhnn7$2r2of$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:10:31 on Sun, 3 Dec
2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <ukhdge$2phim$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:16:14 on Sun, 3 Dec
>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <3gsjmihrn2o0vvos598s3pt3p069e8c08c@4ax.com>, at 14:56:10 on
>>>> Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 14:45:15 +0000, GB
>>>>><NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01/12/2023 09:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even if I had such a vote, I would not cast it to implement quite such a
>>>>>>> broken IT system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that everybody here agrees with you that the IT system is broken.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apart from the annoyance to people like yourself, it must cause much
>>>>>> work within TFL sorting out the mess. And, there's no obvious reason for
>>>>>> the slow updates of the fine system.
>>>>>
>>>>> One word explanation: Crapita
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.capita.com/news/capita-operated-ultra-low-emission-zone-
>>>>> expansion-launches-london
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nevertheless, you are going on a bit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed so, but it's all new and shocking for Roland.
>>>>>
>>>>> This has actually been going on for years, and has been widely reported
>>>>> in the media and in local groups:
>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/owj4ll/psa_your_private_plate_
>>>>> can_make_you_car_seem_ulez/
>>>>
>>>> "they explained that DVLA doesn't give complete information when
>>>> it's a private plate so they just make the car non-compliant"
>>>>
>>>> That's nonsense because TfL got the correct vehicle make and number from
>>>> DVLA, which means they could also get the date of first registration,
>>>> which confirms automatic compliance (only by six months, but one day
>>>> would be sufficient).
>>>>
>>>> If it's been going on for years, then they've had plenty of time to fix
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> I note a recent FOI response from TfL confirming they only update the
>>>> database they check ANPR against "once a month", but failed to say when
>>>> in the month, or answer the second part of the enquiry which was about
>>>> its wider impact on personal plate holders.
>>>>
>>>> As it happens, my vehicle was issued with a V5 a month and a day before
>>>> the alleged offence, and their database wasn't so out of date it had the
>>>> wrong vehicle description. So this is a different type of glitch. If it
>>>> had still said "Freelander" I'd be going about this quite differently.
>>>>
>>>> And part of the issue I have is the asymmetry - they say fines must be
>>>> paid within 14 days (and in my case the notice spent the first 5 days in
>>>> the post), but they give themselves a whole month to issue invalid
>>>> notices.
>>>>
>>>> They also have an absolute deadline of responding to the notice by Xmas
>>>> Eve, and although I accept it can be done online, the default is by
>>>> post, and it's unclear if a proof-of-posting is evidence of "serving"
>>>> the appeal, rather than the date they open the letter (which in any
>>>> event they are stunningly unlikely to do on Xmas Eve, Xmas Day, or
>>>> Boxing Day).
>>>
>>> Any entanglement with authorities that have some form of legislative
>>> backing to their position is always asymmetric and not in favour of the
>>> individual. Just be thankful that you’ve not been accused of a serious
>>> criminal offence that you didn’t commit.
>>
>> Actually, TfL is committing a criminal offence because they are holding
>> (and processing) needlessly inaccurate data, and that's a contravention
>> of GDPR.
>>
>I also look forwards to you taking that to court or persuading the
>authorities to prosecute. There’s thousands of much more serious
>transgressions of GDPR that never go anywhere near a court room.

I'll leave it to someone else, but it might be helpful in a civil case
against TfL for compensation.
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 2 Dec 2023 13:39:06 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <ukfbgp$2cef5$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:30:01 on Sat, 2 Dec
>2023, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
>
>>At my work, they seemed to have blocks of registrations issued to them.
>>One day someone was driving through London in a new Land Rover and
>>noticed that the bus in front had the same registration number. The
>>DVLA seems to have issued the same block of registrations to two
>>organisations.
>
>I was driving through Peterborough about ten years ago [previous
>anecdote was from 1983] and noticed the car in front of me had a
>numberplate only one-different from mine. Same make model and colour,
>but a 4-door not a 2-door.
>
I will raise you my old Maestro van which turned out to be one digit
different from an otherwise identical vehicle 500 miles away in my
grandmother's town resulting in the occasional wave/flash/toot from
other people when I was on holiday with it.

On Sat, 2 Dec 2023 15:30:25 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <ukfg2g$2d3og$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:47:44 on Sat, 2 Dec
>2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>On 02/12/2023 13:09, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <ukes6g$2a4lm$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:08:32 on Sat, 2 Dec
>>>2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> On 02/12/2023 07:43, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <ukd9gj$1vm0o$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:43:31 on Fri, 1
>>>>>Dec 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <5ooaN.14$XUo2.13@fx14.ams1>, at 17:06:09 on Fri, 1
>>>>>>>Dec 2023,
>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <3gsjmihrn2o0vvos598s3pt3p069e8c08c@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>>>>14:56:10 on
>>>>>>>>> Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 14:45:15 +0000, GB
>>>>>>>>>><NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/12/2023 09:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Even if I had such a vote, I would not cast it to implement
>>>>>>>>>>>>quite such a  broken IT system.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think that everybody here agrees with you that the IT
>>>>>>>>>>>system is  broken.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Apart from the annoyance to people like yourself, it must
>>>>>>>>>>>cause much  work within TFL sorting out the mess. And,
>>>>>>>>>>>there's no obvious  reason for  the slow updates of the fine system.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> One word explanation: Crapita
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>https://www.capita.com/news/capita-operated-ultra-low-emission-z
>>>>>>>>>>one-expa nsion-launches-london
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, you are going on a bit.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Indeed so, but it's all new and shocking for Roland.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This has actually been going on for years, and has been widely
>>>>>>>>>>reported  in the media and in local groups:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/owj4ll/psa_your_private
>>>>>>>>>>_plate_c an_make_you_car_seem_ulez/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sadly for you narrative, that's a completely different scenario:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "When we checked the TfL vehicle checker again, the car came up as
>>>>>>>>> non-compliant."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sorry to go on and on about it (but you seem determined to
>>>>>>>>>raise bogus issues which can't go unchallenged) I checked the
>>>>>>>>>TfL site a few days after the plate was transferred - just in
>>>>>>>>>case something like this  might happen - and it agreed the vehicle was compliant.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And I checked again the other day, and it still says it's compliant.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But I've already said that, are you suffering from short-term memory
>>>>>>>>> loss?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You car model is compliant, but the system is clearly still
>>>>>>>>associating your vanity plate with either your previous car, or
>>>>>>>>the one your plate first adorned.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The one it first adorned, I have no idea. It would have been some
>>>>>>>vehicle sold new in Surrey in 1976. They don't tell you that
>>>>>>>make/model when you "buy" a memory-plate. Which I didn't do until
>>>>>>>1985, so it may not have even been the second vehicle to carry it
>>>>>>>at, at that point. Also at that time it was commonplace for
>>>>>>>people to "park" plates-for-sale on otherwise scrap mopeds,
>>>>>>>because I don't think they'd invented the concept of retention certificates.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's the same problem as many others have reported.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No No No. (Apologies to Vicar of Dibley viewers).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The PN has printed on it the make/model of the **successor*
>>>>>>>vehicle, the ULEZ compatible one!!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I previously provide a link to an article that explains how to
>>>>>>>>solve  the problem, but you still keep complaining here rather
>>>>>>>>than just sorting it out like any normal person would.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've appealed the PNs the day they arrived, explaining in
>>>>>>>particular the way the PN has a photo of my car, which is clearly
>>>>>>>not a Freelander (plus the fact it also quotes the make and model
>>>>>>> vehicle).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the Mayor could bring the whole ULEZ scheme into greater disrepute,
>>>>>>> I'd struggle to say exactly how.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I doubt that the average person has much sympathy for the owners
>>>>>>of vanity  plates.
>>>
>>>>>  It's a memory-plate, nothing to do with vanity. The first car of
>>>>>mine it  would otherwise have been on, but wasn't because that would
>>>>>have made it  look younger than it actually was, is BJU 199K. And
>>>>>yes, I had to go  look that up.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I get a choice between a site called Autoshite and a special issue
>>>>on Urinary Incontinence.
>
>>> I'd already checked to see if any search engines threw up an image
>>>of that car, but they didn't. One of its claims to fame it was the
>>>actual vehicle tested by "Motor Magazine" when first launched. But
>>>maybe there's not an online archive of their back-numbers (I do have
>>>a print copy though).
>>
>>DVLA list it as a red Lotus.
>
>I'm surprised it's still listed. I sold it in around 1987 to a collector
>who said he'd be exporting it to Japan. Must have found its way back.
>Wonder if it's in a museum somewhere.
>
If it has never been notified as scrapped/exported/etc. it stays on
the system whether it exists or not; there are probably thousands of
ghost vehicles from pre-SORN days which exist on paper only. That one
also shows as last taxed in 1984 and no MOT records (not no MOT) but
last V5 issued in 1991.
<snip>

On Sat, 2 Dec 2023 12:57:18 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <7vikmithojmmrb0rv6dg8lnqpi0ou3p3jn@4ax.com>, at 21:28:32 on
>Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 18:20:46 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <5ooaN.14$XUo2.13@fx14.ams1>, at 17:06:09 on Fri, 1 Dec 2023,
>>>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <3gsjmihrn2o0vvos598s3pt3p069e8c08c@4ax.com>, at 14:56:10 on
>>>>> Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 14:45:15 +0000, GB
>>>>>><NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 01/12/2023 09:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even if I had such a vote, I would not cast it to implement quite such a
>>>>>>>> broken IT system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that everybody here agrees with you that the IT system is broken.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apart from the annoyance to people like yourself, it must cause much
>>>>>>> work within TFL sorting out the mess. And, there's no obvious reason for
>>>>>>> the slow updates of the fine system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One word explanation: Crapita
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.capita.com/news/capita-operated-ultra-low-emission-zone-expa
>>>>>> nsion-launches-london
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nevertheless, you are going on a bit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed so, but it's all new and shocking for Roland.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This has actually been going on for years, and has been widely reported
>>>>>> in the media and in local groups:
>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/owj4ll/psa_your_private_plate_c
>>>>>> an_make_you_car_seem_ulez/
>>>>>
>>>>> Sadly for you narrative, that's a completely different scenario:
>>>>>
>>>>> "When we checked the TfL vehicle checker again, the car came up as
>>>>> non-compliant."
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry to go on and on about it (but you seem determined to raise bogus
>>>>> issues which can't go unchallenged) I checked the TfL site a few days
>>>>> after the plate was transferred - just in case something like this might
>>>>> happen - and it agreed the vehicle was compliant.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I checked again the other day, and it still says it's compliant.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I've already said that, are you suffering from short-term memory
>>>>> loss?
>>>>
>>>>You car model is compliant, but the system is clearly still associating
>>>>your vanity plate with either your previous car, or the one your plate
>>>>first adorned.
>>>
>>>The one it first adorned, I have no idea. It would have been some
>>>vehicle sold new in Surrey in 1976. They don't tell you that make/model
>>>when you "buy" a memory-plate. Which I didn't do until 1985, so it may
>>>not have even been the second vehicle to carry it at, at that point.
>>>Also at that time it was commonplace for people to "park"
>>>plates-for-sale on otherwise scrap mopeds, because I don't think they'd
>>>invented the concept of retention certificates.
>>>
>>If the transfer was from a vehicle which was not currently licensed
>>then it was liable to be required to be produced to prove that it
>>existed. In the past when local offices still existed you would
>>occasionally see one on the back of a scrappy's vehicle having its
>>existence verified.
>
>I recall when it was worse than that, you had to prove the donor
>vehicle was roadworthy, which meant taking it to the local office
>for an inspection.
>
>>Current requirements include that a vehicle must "be able to move
>>under its own power" and "have been taxed or had a SORN in place
>>continuously for the past 5 years" thus now excluding many such
>>wrecks.
>
>Can you even do a direct car-to-car transfer any more, without going via
>a retention certificate? I had one of the latter for a whole day back in
>October.
>
Yes, it costs the same either way.
Option A - "I want to take the vehicle registration number off a
vehicle and put it straight onto a different vehicle."
Option B - "I want to take the number off a vehicle and keep it on a
retention document for up to 10 years."
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/application-to-transfer-or-retain-a-vehicle-registration-number

As long as the donor vehicle is off-road then your only other
immediate need is a screwdriver to shift the numberplates.
>I'm not sure I believe the 5yrs thing, because the car I bought had a
>personal number plate from the previous owner when it was sold to the
>dealer (which was then put on retention, and the car had a regular one
>on it for the week or two while it was the forecourt).
>
>The car was first-registered on 8/4/2016 and let's give it the benefit
>of the doubt the previous personal plate was put on soon afterwards.
>Five years later is March 2021, so is it you proposition that had the
>car been traded in before then (perhaps at three years old), the
>personal numberplate in question would have been irrevocably attached to
>that lump of metal (unless the new owner agreed to "sell" it back to the
>original owner when the clock struck "5yrs").

On Sat, 2 Dec 2023 12:57:18 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <7vikmithojmmrb0rv6dg8lnqpi0ou3p3jn@4ax.com>, at 21:28:32 on
>Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 18:20:46 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <5ooaN.14$XUo2.13@fx14.ams1>, at 17:06:09 on Fri, 1 Dec 2023,
>>>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <3gsjmihrn2o0vvos598s3pt3p069e8c08c@4ax.com>, at 14:56:10 on
>>>>> Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 14:45:15 +0000, GB
>>>>>><NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 01/12/2023 09:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even if I had such a vote, I would not cast it to implement quite such a
>>>>>>>> broken IT system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that everybody here agrees with you that the IT system is broken.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apart from the annoyance to people like yourself, it must cause much
>>>>>>> work within TFL sorting out the mess. And, there's no obvious reason for
>>>>>>> the slow updates of the fine system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One word explanation: Crapita
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.capita.com/news/capita-operated-ultra-low-emission-zone-expa
>>>>>> nsion-launches-london
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nevertheless, you are going on a bit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed so, but it's all new and shocking for Roland.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This has actually been going on for years, and has been widely reported
>>>>>> in the media and in local groups:
>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/owj4ll/psa_your_private_plate_c
>>>>>> an_make_you_car_seem_ulez/
>>>>>
>>>>> Sadly for you narrative, that's a completely different scenario:
>>>>>
>>>>> "When we checked the TfL vehicle checker again, the car came up as
>>>>> non-compliant."
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry to go on and on about it (but you seem determined to raise bogus
>>>>> issues which can't go unchallenged) I checked the TfL site a few days
>>>>> after the plate was transferred - just in case something like this might
>>>>> happen - and it agreed the vehicle was compliant.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I checked again the other day, and it still says it's compliant.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I've already said that, are you suffering from short-term memory
>>>>> loss?
>>>>
>>>>You car model is compliant, but the system is clearly still associating
>>>>your vanity plate with either your previous car, or the one your plate
>>>>first adorned.
>>>
>>>The one it first adorned, I have no idea. It would have been some
>>>vehicle sold new in Surrey in 1976. They don't tell you that make/model
>>>when you "buy" a memory-plate. Which I didn't do until 1985, so it may
>>>not have even been the second vehicle to carry it at, at that point.
>>>Also at that time it was commonplace for people to "park"
>>>plates-for-sale on otherwise scrap mopeds, because I don't think they'd
>>>invented the concept of retention certificates.
>>>
>>If the transfer was from a vehicle which was not currently licensed
>>then it was liable to be required to be produced to prove that it
>>existed. In the past when local offices still existed you would
>>occasionally see one on the back of a scrappy's vehicle having its
>>existence verified.
>
>I recall when it was worse than that, you had to prove the donor
>vehicle was roadworthy, which meant taking it to the local office
>for an inspection.
>
>>Current requirements include that a vehicle must "be able to move
>>under its own power" and "have been taxed or had a SORN in place
>>continuously for the past 5 years" thus now excluding many such
>>wrecks.
>
>Can you even do a direct car-to-car transfer any more, without going via
>a retention certificate? I had one of the latter for a whole day back in
>October.
>
>I'm not sure I believe the 5yrs thing, because the car I bought had a
>personal number plate from the previous owner when it was sold to the
>dealer (which was then put on retention, and the car had a regular one
>on it for the week or two while it was the forecourt).
>
>The car was first-registered on 8/4/2016 and let's give it the benefit
>of the doubt the previous personal plate was put on soon afterwards.
>Five years later is March 2021, so is it you proposition that had the
>car been traded in before then (perhaps at three years old), the
>personal numberplate in question would have been irrevocably attached to
>that lump of metal (unless the new owner agreed to "sell" it back to the
>original owner when the clock struck "5yrs").
>
5 years is mentioned in -
https://www.gov.uk/personalised-vehicle-registration-numbers/take-private-number-off

but that will be when the number hasn't already been retained, in
which case the vehicle doesn't need to exist anyway.

On Sun, 3 Dec 2023 12:50:55 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <ukhnn7$2r2of$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:10:31 on Sun, 3 Dec
>2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <ukhdge$2phim$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:16:14 on Sun, 3 Dec
>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <3gsjmihrn2o0vvos598s3pt3p069e8c08c@4ax.com>, at 14:56:10 on
>>>>> Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 14:45:15 +0000, GB
>>>>>><NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 01/12/2023 09:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even if I had such a vote, I would not cast it to implement quite such a
>>>>>>>> broken IT system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that everybody here agrees with you that the IT system is broken.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apart from the annoyance to people like yourself, it must cause much
>>>>>>> work within TFL sorting out the mess. And, there's no obvious reason for
>>>>>>> the slow updates of the fine system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One word explanation: Crapita
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.capita.com/news/capita-operated-ultra-low-emission-zone-
>>>>>> expansion-launches-london
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nevertheless, you are going on a bit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed so, but it's all new and shocking for Roland.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This has actually been going on for years, and has been widely reported
>>>>>> in the media and in local groups:
>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/owj4ll/psa_your_private_plate_
>>>>>> can_make_you_car_seem_ulez/
>>>>>
>>>>> "they explained that DVLA doesn't give complete information when
>>>>> it's a private plate so they just make the car non-compliant"
>>>>>
>>>>> That's nonsense because TfL got the correct vehicle make and number from
>>>>> DVLA, which means they could also get the date of first registration,
>>>>> which confirms automatic compliance (only by six months, but one day
>>>>> would be sufficient).
>>>>>
>>>>> If it's been going on for years, then they've had plenty of time to fix
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I note a recent FOI response from TfL confirming they only update the
>>>>> database they check ANPR against "once a month", but failed to say when
>>>>> in the month, or answer the second part of the enquiry which was about
>>>>> its wider impact on personal plate holders.
>>>>>
>>>>> As it happens, my vehicle was issued with a V5 a month and a day before
>>>>> the alleged offence, and their database wasn't so out of date it had the
>>>>> wrong vehicle description. So this is a different type of glitch. If it
>>>>> had still said "Freelander" I'd be going about this quite differently.
>>>>>
>>>>> And part of the issue I have is the asymmetry - they say fines must be
>>>>> paid within 14 days (and in my case the notice spent the first 5 days in
>>>>> the post), but they give themselves a whole month to issue invalid
>>>>> notices.
>>>>>
>>>>> They also have an absolute deadline of responding to the notice by Xmas
>>>>> Eve, and although I accept it can be done online, the default is by
>>>>> post, and it's unclear if a proof-of-posting is evidence of "serving"
>>>>> the appeal, rather than the date they open the letter (which in any
>>>>> event they are stunningly unlikely to do on Xmas Eve, Xmas Day, or
>>>>> Boxing Day).
>>>>
>>>> Any entanglement with authorities that have some form of legislative
>>>> backing to their position is always asymmetric and not in favour of the
>>>> individual. Just be thankful that you’ve not been accused of a serious
>>>> criminal offence that you didn’t commit.
>>>
>>> Actually, TfL is committing a criminal offence because they are holding
>>> (and processing) needlessly inaccurate data, and that's a contravention
>>> of GDPR.
>>>
>>I also look forwards to you taking that to court or persuading the
>>authorities to prosecute. There’s thousands of much more serious
>>transgressions of GDPR that never go anywhere near a court room.
>
>I'll leave it to someone else, but it might be helpful in a civil case
>against TfL for compensation.
>
I would not be surprised if the relevant legislation is worded to
defeat that.

In message <lm2qmi5o0n7bdrr6l50ba7gf4aith2p6sj@4ax.com>, at 23:20:14 on
Sun, 3 Dec 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>On Sat, 2 Dec 2023 15:30:25 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <ukfg2g$2d3og$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:47:44 on Sat, 2 Dec
>>2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>On 02/12/2023 13:09, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <ukes6g$2a4lm$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:08:32 on Sat, 2 Dec
>>>>2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> On 02/12/2023 07:43, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <ukd9gj$1vm0o$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:43:31 on Fri, 1
>>>>>>Dec 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <5ooaN.14$XUo2.13@fx14.ams1>, at 17:06:09 on Fri, 1
>>>>>>>>Dec 2023,
>>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In message <3gsjmihrn2o0vvos598s3pt3p069e8c08c@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>>>>>14:56:10 on
>>>>>>>>>> Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 14:45:15 +0000, GB
>>>>>>>>>>><NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/12/2023 09:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even if I had such a vote, I would not cast it to implement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>quite such a  broken IT system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that everybody here agrees with you that the IT
>>>>>>>>>>>>system is  broken.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Apart from the annoyance to people like yourself, it must
>>>>>>>>>>>>cause much  work within TFL sorting out the mess. And,
>>>>>>>>>>>>there's no obvious  reason for  the slow updates of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>fine system.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> One word explanation: Crapita
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.capita.com/news/capita-operated-ultra-low-emission-z
>>>>>>>>>>>one-expa nsion-launches-london
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, you are going on a bit.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed so, but it's all new and shocking for Roland.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This has actually been going on for years, and has been widely
>>>>>>>>>>>reported  in the media and in local groups:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/owj4ll/psa_your_private
>>>>>>>>>>>_plate_c an_make_you_car_seem_ulez/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sadly for you narrative, that's a completely different scenario:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "When we checked the TfL vehicle checker again, the car came up as
>>>>>>>>>> non-compliant."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sorry to go on and on about it (but you seem determined to
>>>>>>>>>>raise bogus issues which can't go unchallenged) I checked the
>>>>>>>>>>TfL site a few days after the plate was transferred - just in
>>>>>>>>>>case something like this  might happen - and it agreed the
>>>>>>>>>>vehicle was compliant.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And I checked again the other day, and it still says it's compliant.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But I've already said that, are you suffering from short-term memory
>>>>>>>>>> loss?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You car model is compliant, but the system is clearly still
>>>>>>>>>associating your vanity plate with either your previous car, or
>>>>>>>>>the one your plate first adorned.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The one it first adorned, I have no idea. It would have been some
>>>>>>>>vehicle sold new in Surrey in 1976. They don't tell you that
>>>>>>>>make/model when you "buy" a memory-plate. Which I didn't do until
>>>>>>>>1985, so it may not have even been the second vehicle to carry it
>>>>>>>>at, at that point. Also at that time it was commonplace for
>>>>>>>>people to "park" plates-for-sale on otherwise scrap mopeds,
>>>>>>>>because I don't think they'd invented the concept of retention
>>>>>>>>certificates.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's the same problem as many others have reported.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No No No. (Apologies to Vicar of Dibley viewers).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The PN has printed on it the make/model of the **successor*
>>>>>>>>vehicle, the ULEZ compatible one!!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I previously provide a link to an article that explains how to
>>>>>>>>>solve  the problem, but you still keep complaining here rather
>>>>>>>>>than just sorting it out like any normal person would.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've appealed the PNs the day they arrived, explaining in
>>>>>>>>particular the way the PN has a photo of my car, which is clearly
>>>>>>>>not a Freelander (plus the fact it also quotes the make and model
>>>>>>>> vehicle).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the Mayor could bring the whole ULEZ scheme into greater disrepute,
>>>>>>>> I'd struggle to say exactly how.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I doubt that the average person has much sympathy for the owners
>>>>>>>of vanity  plates.
>>>>
>>>>>>  It's a memory-plate, nothing to do with vanity. The first car of
>>>>>>mine it  would otherwise have been on, but wasn't because that would
>>>>>>have made it  look younger than it actually was, is BJU 199K. And
>>>>>>yes, I had to go  look that up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I get a choice between a site called Autoshite and a special issue
>>>>>on Urinary Incontinence.
>>
>>>> I'd already checked to see if any search engines threw up an image
>>>>of that car, but they didn't. One of its claims to fame it was the
>>>>actual vehicle tested by "Motor Magazine" when first launched. But
>>>>maybe there's not an online archive of their back-numbers (I do have
>>>>a print copy though).
>>>
>>>DVLA list it as a red Lotus.
>>
>>I'm surprised it's still listed. I sold it in around 1987 to a collector
>>who said he'd be exporting it to Japan. Must have found its way back.
>>Wonder if it's in a museum somewhere.
>>
>If it has never been notified as scrapped/exported/etc. it stays on
>the system whether it exists or not; there are probably thousands of
>ghost vehicles from pre-SORN days which exist on paper only. That one
>also shows as last taxed in 1984

That's broadly consistent with my recollection that it was off-the-road
(in pre-SORN days) rotting away in the back garden of the house I bought
in 1984/5.

In message <ss4qmipca3u1vii3f000m9o3n940h1tbe1@4ax.com>, at 23:50:04 on
Sun, 3 Dec 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:

>>>I also look forwards to you taking that to court or persuading the
>>>authorities to prosecute. There’s thousands of much more serious
>>>transgressions of GDPR that never go anywhere near a court room.
>>
>>I'll leave it to someone else, but it might be helpful in a civil case
>>against TfL for compensation.
>>
>I would not be surprised if the relevant legislation is worded to
>defeat that.

That would tend to cause me to enquire why there's legislation giving
a public authority the right to break the law with no liability for
compensation.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 12:58:46 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <ss4qmipca3u1vii3f000m9o3n940h1tbe1@4ax.com>, at 23:50:04 on
>Sun, 3 Dec 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>
>>>>I also look forwards to you taking that to court or persuading the
>>>>authorities to prosecute. There’s thousands of much more serious
>>>>transgressions of GDPR that never go anywhere near a court room.
>>>
>>>I'll leave it to someone else, but it might be helpful in a civil case
>>>against TfL for compensation.
>>>
>>I would not be surprised if the relevant legislation is worded to
>>defeat that.
>
>That would tend to cause me to enquire why there's legislation giving
>a public authority the right to break the law with no liability for
>compensation.
>
There seem to be quite a few firms dealing with data protection breach
compensation so the "no liability" is maybe more a case of
practicality than law. No doubt they would get you 2000 compensation
and then knock off 1999 expenses.

On 05/12/2023 11:59, Charles Ellson wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 12:58:46 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> In message <ss4qmipca3u1vii3f000m9o3n940h1tbe1@4ax.com>, at 23:50:04 on
>> Sun, 3 Dec 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>
>>>>> I also look forwards to you taking that to court or persuading the
>>>>> authorities to prosecute. There’s thousands of much more serious
>>>>> transgressions of GDPR that never go anywhere near a court room.
>>>>
>>>> I'll leave it to someone else, but it might be helpful in a civil case
>>>> against TfL for compensation.
>>>>
>>> I would not be surprised if the relevant legislation is worded to
>>> defeat that.
>>
>> That would tend to cause me to enquire why there's legislation giving
>> a public authority the right to break the law with no liability for
>> compensation.
>>
> There seem to be quite a few firms dealing with data protection breach
> compensation so the "no liability" is maybe more a case of
> practicality than law. No doubt they would get you 2000 compensation
> and then knock off 1999 expenses.

More likely to be £2000.00 compensation and £2500.00 expenses!
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 3 Dec 2023 10:23, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <ukhdge$2phim$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:16:14 on Sun, 3 Dec
> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <3gsjmihrn2o0vvos598s3pt3p069e8c08c@4ax.com>, at 14:56:10 on
>>> Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 14:45:15 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 01/12/2023 09:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Even if I had such a vote, I would not cast it to implement quite such a
>>>>>> broken IT system.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that everybody here agrees with you that the IT system is broken.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apart from the annoyance to people like yourself, it must cause much
>>>>> work within TFL sorting out the mess. And, there's no obvious reason for
>>>>> the slow updates of the fine system.
>>>>
>>>> One word explanation: Crapita
>>>>
>>>> https://www.capita.com/news/capita-operated-ultra-low-emission-zone-
>>>> expansion-launches-london
>>>>
>>>>> Nevertheless, you are going on a bit.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed so, but it's all new and shocking for Roland.
>>>>
>>>> This has actually been going on for years, and has been widely reported
>>>> in the media and in local groups:
>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/owj4ll/psa_your_private_plate_
>>>> can_make_you_car_seem_ulez/
>>>
>>> "they explained that DVLA doesn't give complete information when
>>> it's a private plate so they just make the car non-compliant"
>>>
>>> That's nonsense because TfL got the correct vehicle make and number from
>>> DVLA, which means they could also get the date of first registration,
>>> which confirms automatic compliance (only by six months, but one day
>>> would be sufficient).
>>>
>>> If it's been going on for years, then they've had plenty of time to fix
>>> it.
>>>
>>> I note a recent FOI response from TfL confirming they only update the
>>> database they check ANPR against "once a month", but failed to say when
>>> in the month, or answer the second part of the enquiry which was about
>>> its wider impact on personal plate holders.
>>>
>>> As it happens, my vehicle was issued with a V5 a month and a day before
>>> the alleged offence, and their database wasn't so out of date it had the
>>> wrong vehicle description. So this is a different type of glitch. If it
>>> had still said "Freelander" I'd be going about this quite differently.
>>>
>>> And part of the issue I have is the asymmetry - they say fines must be
>>> paid within 14 days (and in my case the notice spent the first 5 days in
>>> the post), but they give themselves a whole month to issue invalid
>>> notices.
>>>
>>> They also have an absolute deadline of responding to the notice by Xmas
>>> Eve, and although I accept it can be done online, the default is by
>>> post, and it's unclear if a proof-of-posting is evidence of "serving"
>>> the appeal, rather than the date they open the letter (which in any
>>> event they are stunningly unlikely to do on Xmas Eve, Xmas Day, or
>>> Boxing Day).
>>
>>Any entanglement with authorities that have some form of legislative
>>backing to their position is always asymmetric and not in favour of
the
>>individual. Just be thankful that you've not been accused of a serious
>>criminal offence that you didn't commit.
>
> Actually, TfL is committing a criminal offence because they are holding
> (and processing) needlessly inaccurate data, and that's a contravention
> of GDPR.
>

I'm not sure VRMs identify individuals beyond the keeper and the
personal data in your case isn't wrong. Just some associated data.
If that were cause to sue then banks would have no money as the balance
is out of date between a transaction and reconciliation. And, of
course, anything else where transactional data is stored against an
individual.

In message <uknnc9$86i9$3@dont-email.me>, at 17:41:29 on Tue, 5 Dec
2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 05/12/2023 11:59, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 12:58:46 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <ss4qmipca3u1vii3f000m9o3n940h1tbe1@4ax.com>, at 23:50:04
>>>on
>>> Sun, 3 Dec 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>> I also look forwards to you taking that to court or persuading the
>>>>>> authorities to prosecute. There’s thousands of much more serious
>>>>>> transgressions of GDPR that never go anywhere near a court room.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll leave it to someone else, but it might be helpful in a civil case
>>>>> against TfL for compensation.
>>>>>
>>>> I would not be surprised if the relevant legislation is worded to
>>>> defeat that.
>>>
>>> That would tend to cause me to enquire why there's legislation giving
>>> a public authority the right to break the law with no liability for
>>> compensation.
>>>
>> There seem to be quite a few firms dealing with data protection breach
>> compensation so the "no liability" is maybe more a case of
>> practicality than law. No doubt they would get you 2000 compensation
>> and then knock off 1999 expenses.
>
>More likely to be £2000.00 compensation and £2500.00 expenses!

If you mean no-win-no-fee lawyers, I'm not aware of any specific ones
which deal with data protection compensation; and if there were I
wouldn't use one anyway.
--
Roland Perry

In message <kt9c10F931dU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:29:35 on Tue, 5 Dec
2023, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>On 3 Dec 2023 10:23, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <ukhdge$2phim$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:16:14 on Sun, 3 Dec
>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <3gsjmihrn2o0vvos598s3pt3p069e8c08c@4ax.com>, at 14:56:10 on
>>>> Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 14:45:15 +0000, GB
>>>>><NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01/12/2023 09:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even if I had such a vote, I would not cast it to implement quite such a
>>>>>>> broken IT system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that everybody here agrees with you that the IT system is broken.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apart from the annoyance to people like yourself, it must cause much
>>>>>> work within TFL sorting out the mess. And, there's no obvious reason for
>>>>>> the slow updates of the fine system.
>>>>>
>>>>> One word explanation: Crapita
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.capita.com/news/capita-operated-ultra-low-emission-zone-
>>>>> expansion-launches-london
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nevertheless, you are going on a bit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed so, but it's all new and shocking for Roland.
>>>>>
>>>>> This has actually been going on for years, and has been widely reported
>>>>> in the media and in local groups:
>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/owj4ll/psa_your_private_plate_
>>>>> can_make_you_car_seem_ulez/
>>>>
>>>> "they explained that DVLA doesn't give complete information when
>>>> it's a private plate so they just make the car non-compliant"
>>>>
>>>> That's nonsense because TfL got the correct vehicle make and number from
>>>> DVLA, which means they could also get the date of first registration,
>>>> which confirms automatic compliance (only by six months, but one day
>>>> would be sufficient).
>>>>
>>>> If it's been going on for years, then they've had plenty of time to fix
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> I note a recent FOI response from TfL confirming they only update the
>>>> database they check ANPR against "once a month", but failed to say when
>>>> in the month, or answer the second part of the enquiry which was about
>>>> its wider impact on personal plate holders.
>>>>
>>>> As it happens, my vehicle was issued with a V5 a month and a day before
>>>> the alleged offence, and their database wasn't so out of date it had the
>>>> wrong vehicle description. So this is a different type of glitch. If it
>>>> had still said "Freelander" I'd be going about this quite differently.
>>>>
>>>> And part of the issue I have is the asymmetry - they say fines must be
>>>> paid within 14 days (and in my case the notice spent the first 5 days in
>>>> the post), but they give themselves a whole month to issue invalid
>>>> notices.
>>>>
>>>> They also have an absolute deadline of responding to the notice by Xmas
>>>> Eve, and although I accept it can be done online, the default is by
>>>> post, and it's unclear if a proof-of-posting is evidence of "serving"
>>>> the appeal, rather than the date they open the letter (which in any
>>>> event they are stunningly unlikely to do on Xmas Eve, Xmas Day, or
>>>> Boxing Day).
>>>
>>>Any entanglement with authorities that have some form of legislative
>>>backing to their position is always asymmetric and not in favour of
>the
>>>individual. Just be thankful that you've not been accused of a serious
>>>criminal offence that you didn't commit.
>>
>> Actually, TfL is committing a criminal offence because they are holding
>> (and processing) needlessly inaccurate data, and that's a contravention
>> of GDPR.
>
>I'm not sure VRMs identify individuals beyond the keeper and the
>personal data in your case isn't wrong. Just some associated data.

"just associated data" is the whole point.

In the case of ULEZ PNs, it clearly has the keeper's name and address
on, for example, which in the case in question is *correct* (as is the
make and model of the vehicle), what's in error is the data they are
holding which says that the keeper is driving a non-compliant vehicle,
which is clearly not the case.

>If that were cause to sue then banks would have no money as the balance
>is out of date between a transaction and reconciliation. And, of
>course, anything else where transactional data is stored against an
>individual.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <kt9c10F931dU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:29:35 on Tue, 5 Dec
> 2023, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>> On 3 Dec 2023 10:23, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <ukhdge$2phim$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:16:14 on Sun, 3 Dec
>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <3gsjmihrn2o0vvos598s3pt3p069e8c08c@4ax.com>, at 14:56:10 on
>>>>> Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 14:45:15 +0000, GB
>>>>>> <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 01/12/2023 09:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even if I had such a vote, I would not cast it to implement quite such a
>>>>>>>> broken IT system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that everybody here agrees with you that the IT system is broken.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apart from the annoyance to people like yourself, it must cause much
>>>>>>> work within TFL sorting out the mess. And, there's no obvious reason for
>>>>>>> the slow updates of the fine system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One word explanation: Crapita
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.capita.com/news/capita-operated-ultra-low-emission-zone-
>>>>>> expansion-launches-london
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nevertheless, you are going on a bit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed so, but it's all new and shocking for Roland.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This has actually been going on for years, and has been widely reported
>>>>>> in the media and in local groups:
>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/owj4ll/psa_your_private_plate_
>>>>>> can_make_you_car_seem_ulez/
>>>>>
>>>>> "they explained that DVLA doesn't give complete information when
>>>>> it's a private plate so they just make the car non-compliant"
>>>>>
>>>>> That's nonsense because TfL got the correct vehicle make and number from
>>>>> DVLA, which means they could also get the date of first registration,
>>>>> which confirms automatic compliance (only by six months, but one day
>>>>> would be sufficient).
>>>>>
>>>>> If it's been going on for years, then they've had plenty of time to fix
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I note a recent FOI response from TfL confirming they only update the
>>>>> database they check ANPR against "once a month", but failed to say when
>>>>> in the month, or answer the second part of the enquiry which was about
>>>>> its wider impact on personal plate holders.
>>>>>
>>>>> As it happens, my vehicle was issued with a V5 a month and a day before
>>>>> the alleged offence, and their database wasn't so out of date it had the
>>>>> wrong vehicle description. So this is a different type of glitch. If it
>>>>> had still said "Freelander" I'd be going about this quite differently.
>>>>>
>>>>> And part of the issue I have is the asymmetry - they say fines must be
>>>>> paid within 14 days (and in my case the notice spent the first 5 days in
>>>>> the post), but they give themselves a whole month to issue invalid
>>>>> notices.
>>>>>
>>>>> They also have an absolute deadline of responding to the notice by Xmas
>>>>> Eve, and although I accept it can be done online, the default is by
>>>>> post, and it's unclear if a proof-of-posting is evidence of "serving"
>>>>> the appeal, rather than the date they open the letter (which in any
>>>>> event they are stunningly unlikely to do on Xmas Eve, Xmas Day, or
>>>>> Boxing Day).
>>>>
>>>> Any entanglement with authorities that have some form of legislative
>>>> backing to their position is always asymmetric and not in favour of
>> the
>>>> individual. Just be thankful that you've not been accused of a serious
>>>> criminal offence that you didn't commit.
>>>
>>> Actually, TfL is committing a criminal offence because they are holding
>>> (and processing) needlessly inaccurate data, and that's a contravention
>>> of GDPR.
>>
>> I'm not sure VRMs identify individuals beyond the keeper and the
>> personal data in your case isn't wrong. Just some associated data.
>
> "just associated data" is the whole point.
>
> In the case of ULEZ PNs, it clearly has the keeper's name and address
> on, for example, which in the case in question is *correct* (as is the
> make and model of the vehicle), what's in error is the data they are
> holding which says that the keeper is driving a non-compliant vehicle,
> which is clearly not the case.
>
As I understand it, GDPR requires personal data to be accurate (in general
terms with exceptions). I don’t see that the incorrect ULEZ classification
of a vehicle is personal data. The name and address of where to send the
penalty is, but that’s different.

In message <ukpi9s$nobq$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:27:08 on Wed, 6 Dec
2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <kt9c10F931dU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:29:35 on Tue, 5 Dec
>> 2023, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>>> On 3 Dec 2023 10:23, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <ukhdge$2phim$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:16:14 on Sun, 3 Dec
>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <3gsjmihrn2o0vvos598s3pt3p069e8c08c@4ax.com>, at 14:56:10 on
>>>>>> Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 14:45:15 +0000, GB
>>>>>>> <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 01/12/2023 09:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Even if I had such a vote, I would not cast it to implement
>>>>>>>>>quite such a broken IT system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think that everybody here agrees with you that the IT system
>>>>>>>>is broken.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apart from the annoyance to people like yourself, it must cause much
>>>>>>>> work within TFL sorting out the mess. And, there's no obvious
>>>>>>>>reason for
>>>>>>>> the slow updates of the fine system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One word explanation: Crapita
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.capita.com/news/capita-operated-ultra-low-emission-zone-
>>>>>>> expansion-launches-london
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, you are going on a bit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indeed so, but it's all new and shocking for Roland.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This has actually been going on for years, and has been widely reported
>>>>>>> in the media and in local groups:
>>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/owj4ll/psa_your_private_plate_
>>>>>>> can_make_you_car_seem_ulez/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "they explained that DVLA doesn't give complete information when
>>>>>> it's a private plate so they just make the car non-compliant"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's nonsense because TfL got the correct vehicle make and number from
>>>>>> DVLA, which means they could also get the date of first registration,
>>>>>> which confirms automatic compliance (only by six months, but one day
>>>>>> would be sufficient).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it's been going on for years, then they've had plenty of time to fix
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I note a recent FOI response from TfL confirming they only update the
>>>>>> database they check ANPR against "once a month", but failed to say when
>>>>>> in the month, or answer the second part of the enquiry which was about
>>>>>> its wider impact on personal plate holders.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As it happens, my vehicle was issued with a V5 a month and a day before
>>>>>> the alleged offence, and their database wasn't so out of date it had the
>>>>>> wrong vehicle description. So this is a different type of glitch. If it
>>>>>> had still said "Freelander" I'd be going about this quite differently.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And part of the issue I have is the asymmetry - they say fines must be
>>>>>> paid within 14 days (and in my case the notice spent the first 5 days in
>>>>>> the post), but they give themselves a whole month to issue invalid
>>>>>> notices.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They also have an absolute deadline of responding to the notice by Xmas
>>>>>> Eve, and although I accept it can be done online, the default is by
>>>>>> post, and it's unclear if a proof-of-posting is evidence of "serving"
>>>>>> the appeal, rather than the date they open the letter (which in any
>>>>>> event they are stunningly unlikely to do on Xmas Eve, Xmas Day, or
>>>>>> Boxing Day).
>>>>>
>>>>> Any entanglement with authorities that have some form of
>>>>>legislative backing to their position is always asymmetric and not
>>>>>in favour of the individual. Just be thankful that you've not
>>>>>been accused of a serious criminal offence that you didn't commit.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, TfL is committing a criminal offence because they are holding
>>>> (and processing) needlessly inaccurate data, and that's a contravention
>>>> of GDPR.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure VRMs identify individuals beyond the keeper and the
>>> personal data in your case isn't wrong. Just some associated data.
>>
>> "just associated data" is the whole point.
>>
>> In the case of ULEZ PNs, it clearly has the keeper's name and address
>> on, for example, which in the case in question is *correct* (as is the
>> make and model of the vehicle), what's in error is the data they are
>> holding which says that the keeper is driving a non-compliant vehicle,
>> which is clearly not the case.
>>
>As I understand it, GDPR requires personal data to be accurate (in general
>terms with exceptions). I don’t see that the incorrect ULEZ classification
>of a vehicle is personal data.

I happen to think it is (having discussed this kind of thing over lunch
one day with the chap who 30yrs ago invented the concept on behalf of
OECD).

It's at the very least an implication that the keeper is a scofflaw who
thinks it's OK to drive in the ULEZ zone in a non-compliant vehicle and
then fail to pay the charge.

>The name and address of where to send the penalty is, but that’s
>different.

The only get-out would be if the transposition of the GDPR into UK law
(I don't think, despite years of bluster, Rees-Mogg and his acolytes
have repealed it yet) has been misdrafted.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <ukpi9s$nobq$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:27:08 on Wed, 6 Dec
> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <kt9c10F931dU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:29:35 on Tue, 5 Dec
>>> 2023, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>>>> On 3 Dec 2023 10:23, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <ukhdge$2phim$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:16:14 on Sun, 3 Dec
>>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <3gsjmihrn2o0vvos598s3pt3p069e8c08c@4ax.com>, at 14:56:10 on
>>>>>>> Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 14:45:15 +0000, GB
>>>>>>>> <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 01/12/2023 09:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Even if I had such a vote, I would not cast it to implement
>>>>>>>>>> quite such a broken IT system.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think that everybody here agrees with you that the IT system
>>>>>>>>> is broken.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Apart from the annoyance to people like yourself, it must cause much
>>>>>>>>> work within TFL sorting out the mess. And, there's no obvious
>>>>>>>>> reason for
>>>>>>>>> the slow updates of the fine system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One word explanation: Crapita
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.capita.com/news/capita-operated-ultra-low-emission-zone-
>>>>>>>> expansion-launches-london
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, you are going on a bit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Indeed so, but it's all new and shocking for Roland.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This has actually been going on for years, and has been widely reported
>>>>>>>> in the media and in local groups:
>>>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/owj4ll/psa_your_private_plate_
>>>>>>>> can_make_you_car_seem_ulez/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "they explained that DVLA doesn't give complete information when
>>>>>>> it's a private plate so they just make the car non-compliant"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's nonsense because TfL got the correct vehicle make and number from
>>>>>>> DVLA, which means they could also get the date of first registration,
>>>>>>> which confirms automatic compliance (only by six months, but one day
>>>>>>> would be sufficient).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it's been going on for years, then they've had plenty of time to fix
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I note a recent FOI response from TfL confirming they only update the
>>>>>>> database they check ANPR against "once a month", but failed to say when
>>>>>>> in the month, or answer the second part of the enquiry which was about
>>>>>>> its wider impact on personal plate holders.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As it happens, my vehicle was issued with a V5 a month and a day before
>>>>>>> the alleged offence, and their database wasn't so out of date it had the
>>>>>>> wrong vehicle description. So this is a different type of glitch. If it
>>>>>>> had still said "Freelander" I'd be going about this quite differently.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And part of the issue I have is the asymmetry - they say fines must be
>>>>>>> paid within 14 days (and in my case the notice spent the first 5 days in
>>>>>>> the post), but they give themselves a whole month to issue invalid
>>>>>>> notices.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They also have an absolute deadline of responding to the notice by Xmas
>>>>>>> Eve, and although I accept it can be done online, the default is by
>>>>>>> post, and it's unclear if a proof-of-posting is evidence of "serving"
>>>>>>> the appeal, rather than the date they open the letter (which in any
>>>>>>> event they are stunningly unlikely to do on Xmas Eve, Xmas Day, or
>>>>>>> Boxing Day).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any entanglement with authorities that have some form of
>>>>>> legislative backing to their position is always asymmetric and not
>>>>>> in favour of the individual. Just be thankful that you've not
>>>>>> been accused of a serious criminal offence that you didn't commit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, TfL is committing a criminal offence because they are holding
>>>>> (and processing) needlessly inaccurate data, and that's a contravention
>>>>> of GDPR.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure VRMs identify individuals beyond the keeper and the
>>>> personal data in your case isn't wrong. Just some associated data.
>>>
>>> "just associated data" is the whole point.
>>>
>>> In the case of ULEZ PNs, it clearly has the keeper's name and address
>>> on, for example, which in the case in question is *correct* (as is the
>>> make and model of the vehicle), what's in error is the data they are
>>> holding which says that the keeper is driving a non-compliant vehicle,
>>> which is clearly not the case.
>>>
>> As I understand it, GDPR requires personal data to be accurate (in general
>> terms with exceptions). I don’t see that the incorrect ULEZ classification
>> of a vehicle is personal data.
>
> I happen to think it is (having discussed this kind of thing over lunch
> one day with the chap who 30yrs ago invented the concept on behalf of
> OECD).
>
> It's at the very least an implication that the keeper is a scofflaw who
> thinks it's OK to drive in the ULEZ zone in a non-compliant vehicle and
> then fail to pay the charge.
>
That’s stretching the point. Clearly the authorities don’t regard the ULEZ
(or tax or MOT) status as personally identifiable information, as anyone
can check any of that online by simply,y knowing tne registration number.

Even if you do regard it to come under GDPR you have the right to request
correction. So until that’s been exhausted to an unsatisfactory conclusion
I think your assertion that they are committing a criminal offence is moot.

On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 10:27:08 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <kt9c10F931dU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:29:35 on Tue, 5 Dec
>> 2023, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>>> On 3 Dec 2023 10:23, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <ukhdge$2phim$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:16:14 on Sun, 3 Dec
>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <3gsjmihrn2o0vvos598s3pt3p069e8c08c@4ax.com>, at 14:56:10 on
>>>>>> Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 14:45:15 +0000, GB
>>>>>>> <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 01/12/2023 09:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Even if I had such a vote, I would not cast it to implement quite such a
>>>>>>>>> broken IT system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think that everybody here agrees with you that the IT system is broken.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apart from the annoyance to people like yourself, it must cause much
>>>>>>>> work within TFL sorting out the mess. And, there's no obvious reason for
>>>>>>>> the slow updates of the fine system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One word explanation: Crapita
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.capita.com/news/capita-operated-ultra-low-emission-zone-
>>>>>>> expansion-launches-london
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, you are going on a bit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indeed so, but it's all new and shocking for Roland.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This has actually been going on for years, and has been widely reported
>>>>>>> in the media and in local groups:
>>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/owj4ll/psa_your_private_plate_
>>>>>>> can_make_you_car_seem_ulez/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "they explained that DVLA doesn't give complete information when
>>>>>> it's a private plate so they just make the car non-compliant"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's nonsense because TfL got the correct vehicle make and number from
>>>>>> DVLA, which means they could also get the date of first registration,
>>>>>> which confirms automatic compliance (only by six months, but one day
>>>>>> would be sufficient).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it's been going on for years, then they've had plenty of time to fix
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I note a recent FOI response from TfL confirming they only update the
>>>>>> database they check ANPR against "once a month", but failed to say when
>>>>>> in the month, or answer the second part of the enquiry which was about
>>>>>> its wider impact on personal plate holders.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As it happens, my vehicle was issued with a V5 a month and a day before
>>>>>> the alleged offence, and their database wasn't so out of date it had the
>>>>>> wrong vehicle description. So this is a different type of glitch. If it
>>>>>> had still said "Freelander" I'd be going about this quite differently.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And part of the issue I have is the asymmetry - they say fines must be
>>>>>> paid within 14 days (and in my case the notice spent the first 5 days in
>>>>>> the post), but they give themselves a whole month to issue invalid
>>>>>> notices.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They also have an absolute deadline of responding to the notice by Xmas
>>>>>> Eve, and although I accept it can be done online, the default is by
>>>>>> post, and it's unclear if a proof-of-posting is evidence of "serving"
>>>>>> the appeal, rather than the date they open the letter (which in any
>>>>>> event they are stunningly unlikely to do on Xmas Eve, Xmas Day, or
>>>>>> Boxing Day).
>>>>>
>>>>> Any entanglement with authorities that have some form of legislative
>>>>> backing to their position is always asymmetric and not in favour of
>>> the
>>>>> individual. Just be thankful that you've not been accused of a serious
>>>>> criminal offence that you didn't commit.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, TfL is committing a criminal offence because they are holding
>>>> (and processing) needlessly inaccurate data, and that's a contravention
>>>> of GDPR.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure VRMs identify individuals beyond the keeper and the
>>> personal data in your case isn't wrong. Just some associated data.
>>
>> "just associated data" is the whole point.
>>
>> In the case of ULEZ PNs, it clearly has the keeper's name and address
>> on, for example, which in the case in question is *correct* (as is the
>> make and model of the vehicle), what's in error is the data they are
>> holding which says that the keeper is driving a non-compliant vehicle,
>> which is clearly not the case.
>>
>As I understand it, GDPR requires personal data to be accurate (in general
>terms with exceptions). I don’t see that the incorrect ULEZ classification
>of a vehicle is personal data. The name and address of where to send the
>penalty is, but that’s different.
>
If the vehicle details held by TfL are incorrect then the personal
data is being obtained on a false premise thus at least from the time
that TfL holds that personal data then it is improperly (but not
inevitably unlawfully?) held. I don't see anything in the Data
Protection Principles which preclude application to non-personal data
(with an indirect connection to a dara subject) which is used to
obtain personal data. See also "going equipped". Repetition compounds
the wrong.

On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 13:43:23 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <ukpi9s$nobq$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:27:08 on Wed, 6 Dec
>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <kt9c10F931dU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:29:35 on Tue, 5 Dec
>>>> 2023, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>>>>> On 3 Dec 2023 10:23, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <ukhdge$2phim$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:16:14 on Sun, 3 Dec
>>>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <3gsjmihrn2o0vvos598s3pt3p069e8c08c@4ax.com>, at 14:56:10 on
>>>>>>>> Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 14:45:15 +0000, GB
>>>>>>>>> <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 01/12/2023 09:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Even if I had such a vote, I would not cast it to implement
>>>>>>>>>>> quite such a broken IT system.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think that everybody here agrees with you that the IT system
>>>>>>>>>> is broken.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Apart from the annoyance to people like yourself, it must cause much
>>>>>>>>>> work within TFL sorting out the mess. And, there's no obvious
>>>>>>>>>> reason for
>>>>>>>>>> the slow updates of the fine system.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One word explanation: Crapita
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.capita.com/news/capita-operated-ultra-low-emission-zone-
>>>>>>>>> expansion-launches-london
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, you are going on a bit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Indeed so, but it's all new and shocking for Roland.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This has actually been going on for years, and has been widely reported
>>>>>>>>> in the media and in local groups:
>>>>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/owj4ll/psa_your_private_plate_
>>>>>>>>> can_make_you_car_seem_ulez/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "they explained that DVLA doesn't give complete information when
>>>>>>>> it's a private plate so they just make the car non-compliant"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's nonsense because TfL got the correct vehicle make and number from
>>>>>>>> DVLA, which means they could also get the date of first registration,
>>>>>>>> which confirms automatic compliance (only by six months, but one day
>>>>>>>> would be sufficient).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If it's been going on for years, then they've had plenty of time to fix
>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I note a recent FOI response from TfL confirming they only update the
>>>>>>>> database they check ANPR against "once a month", but failed to say when
>>>>>>>> in the month, or answer the second part of the enquiry which was about
>>>>>>>> its wider impact on personal plate holders.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As it happens, my vehicle was issued with a V5 a month and a day before
>>>>>>>> the alleged offence, and their database wasn't so out of date it had the
>>>>>>>> wrong vehicle description. So this is a different type of glitch. If it
>>>>>>>> had still said "Freelander" I'd be going about this quite differently.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And part of the issue I have is the asymmetry - they say fines must be
>>>>>>>> paid within 14 days (and in my case the notice spent the first 5 days in
>>>>>>>> the post), but they give themselves a whole month to issue invalid
>>>>>>>> notices.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They also have an absolute deadline of responding to the notice by Xmas
>>>>>>>> Eve, and although I accept it can be done online, the default is by
>>>>>>>> post, and it's unclear if a proof-of-posting is evidence of "serving"
>>>>>>>> the appeal, rather than the date they open the letter (which in any
>>>>>>>> event they are stunningly unlikely to do on Xmas Eve, Xmas Day, or
>>>>>>>> Boxing Day).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any entanglement with authorities that have some form of
>>>>>>> legislative backing to their position is always asymmetric and not
>>>>>>> in favour of the individual. Just be thankful that you've not
>>>>>>> been accused of a serious criminal offence that you didn't commit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, TfL is committing a criminal offence because they are holding
>>>>>> (and processing) needlessly inaccurate data, and that's a contravention
>>>>>> of GDPR.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure VRMs identify individuals beyond the keeper and the
>>>>> personal data in your case isn't wrong. Just some associated data.
>>>>
>>>> "just associated data" is the whole point.
>>>>
>>>> In the case of ULEZ PNs, it clearly has the keeper's name and address
>>>> on, for example, which in the case in question is *correct* (as is the
>>>> make and model of the vehicle), what's in error is the data they are
>>>> holding which says that the keeper is driving a non-compliant vehicle,
>>>> which is clearly not the case.
>>>>
>>> As I understand it, GDPR requires personal data to be accurate (in general
>>> terms with exceptions). I don’t see that the incorrect ULEZ classification
>>> of a vehicle is personal data.
>>
>> I happen to think it is (having discussed this kind of thing over lunch
>> one day with the chap who 30yrs ago invented the concept on behalf of
>> OECD).
>>
>> It's at the very least an implication that the keeper is a scofflaw who
>> thinks it's OK to drive in the ULEZ zone in a non-compliant vehicle and
>> then fail to pay the charge.
>>
>That’s stretching the point. Clearly the authorities don’t regard the ULEZ
>(or tax or MOT) status as personally identifiable information, as anyone
>can check any of that online by simply,y knowing tne registration number.
>
A vehicle record can form part of jigsaw identification of an
individual and comes within the scope of GDPR. That is considered with
e.g. the anonymisation of medical records used for research.
https://ico.org.uk/media/1061/anonymisation-code.pdf

>Even if you do regard it to come under GDPR you have the right to request
>correction.
>So until that’s been exhausted to an unsatisfactory conclusion
>I think your assertion that they are committing a criminal offence is moot.
>
A process which allows repetition is probably on dodgy legal ground
despite the rectifications.

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 13:43:23 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <ukpi9s$nobq$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:27:08 on Wed, 6 Dec
>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <kt9c10F931dU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:29:35 on Tue, 5 Dec
>>>>> 2023, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On 3 Dec 2023 10:23, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <ukhdge$2phim$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:16:14 on Sun, 3 Dec
>>>>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <3gsjmihrn2o0vvos598s3pt3p069e8c08c@4ax.com>, at 14:56:10 on
>>>>>>>>> Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 14:45:15 +0000, GB
>>>>>>>>>> <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/12/2023 09:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Even if I had such a vote, I would not cast it to implement
>>>>>>>>>>>> quite such a broken IT system.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think that everybody here agrees with you that the IT system
>>>>>>>>>>> is broken.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Apart from the annoyance to people like yourself, it must cause much
>>>>>>>>>>> work within TFL sorting out the mess. And, there's no obvious
>>>>>>>>>>> reason for
>>>>>>>>>>> the slow updates of the fine system.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> One word explanation: Crapita
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.capita.com/news/capita-operated-ultra-low-emission-zone-
>>>>>>>>>> expansion-launches-london
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, you are going on a bit.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Indeed so, but it's all new and shocking for Roland.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This has actually been going on for years, and has been widely reported
>>>>>>>>>> in the media and in local groups:
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/owj4ll/psa_your_private_plate_
>>>>>>>>>> can_make_you_car_seem_ulez/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "they explained that DVLA doesn't give complete information when
>>>>>>>>> it's a private plate so they just make the car non-compliant"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's nonsense because TfL got the correct vehicle make and number from
>>>>>>>>> DVLA, which means they could also get the date of first registration,
>>>>>>>>> which confirms automatic compliance (only by six months, but one day
>>>>>>>>> would be sufficient).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If it's been going on for years, then they've had plenty of time to fix
>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I note a recent FOI response from TfL confirming they only update the
>>>>>>>>> database they check ANPR against "once a month", but failed to say when
>>>>>>>>> in the month, or answer the second part of the enquiry which was about
>>>>>>>>> its wider impact on personal plate holders.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As it happens, my vehicle was issued with a V5 a month and a day before
>>>>>>>>> the alleged offence, and their database wasn't so out of date it had the
>>>>>>>>> wrong vehicle description. So this is a different type of glitch. If it
>>>>>>>>> had still said "Freelander" I'd be going about this quite differently.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And part of the issue I have is the asymmetry - they say fines must be
>>>>>>>>> paid within 14 days (and in my case the notice spent the first 5 days in
>>>>>>>>> the post), but they give themselves a whole month to issue invalid
>>>>>>>>> notices.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They also have an absolute deadline of responding to the notice by Xmas
>>>>>>>>> Eve, and although I accept it can be done online, the default is by
>>>>>>>>> post, and it's unclear if a proof-of-posting is evidence of "serving"
>>>>>>>>> the appeal, rather than the date they open the letter (which in any
>>>>>>>>> event they are stunningly unlikely to do on Xmas Eve, Xmas Day, or
>>>>>>>>> Boxing Day).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any entanglement with authorities that have some form of
>>>>>>>> legislative backing to their position is always asymmetric and not
>>>>>>>> in favour of the individual. Just be thankful that you've not
>>>>>>>> been accused of a serious criminal offence that you didn't commit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually, TfL is committing a criminal offence because they are holding
>>>>>>> (and processing) needlessly inaccurate data, and that's a contravention
>>>>>>> of GDPR.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure VRMs identify individuals beyond the keeper and the
>>>>>> personal data in your case isn't wrong. Just some associated data.
>>>>>
>>>>> "just associated data" is the whole point.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the case of ULEZ PNs, it clearly has the keeper's name and address
>>>>> on, for example, which in the case in question is *correct* (as is the
>>>>> make and model of the vehicle), what's in error is the data they are
>>>>> holding which says that the keeper is driving a non-compliant vehicle,
>>>>> which is clearly not the case.
>>>>>
>>>> As I understand it, GDPR requires personal data to be accurate (in general
>>>> terms with exceptions). I don’t see that the incorrect ULEZ classification
>>>> of a vehicle is personal data.
>>>
>>> I happen to think it is (having discussed this kind of thing over lunch
>>> one day with the chap who 30yrs ago invented the concept on behalf of
>>> OECD).
>>>
>>> It's at the very least an implication that the keeper is a scofflaw who
>>> thinks it's OK to drive in the ULEZ zone in a non-compliant vehicle and
>>> then fail to pay the charge.
>>>
>> That’s stretching the point. Clearly the authorities don’t regard the ULEZ
>> (or tax or MOT) status as personally identifiable information, as anyone
>> can check any of that online by simply,y knowing tne registration number.
>>
> A vehicle record can form part of jigsaw identification of an
> individual and comes within the scope of GDPR. That is considered with
> e.g. the anonymisation of medical records used for research.
> https://ico.org.uk/media/1061/anonymisation-code.pdf
>
>> Even if you do regard it to come under GDPR you have the right to request
>> correction.
>> So until that’s been exhausted to an unsatisfactory conclusion
>> I think your assertion that they are committing a criminal offence is moot.
>>
> A process which allows repetition is probably on dodgy legal ground
> despite the rectifications.
>

So where does the jigsaw of identification end? Almost anything can
contribute to such a jigsaw, something that spooks and plod exploit.

On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 18:44:02 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 13:43:23 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <ukpi9s$nobq$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:27:08 on Wed, 6 Dec
>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <kt9c10F931dU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:29:35 on Tue, 5 Dec
>>>>>> 2023, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 3 Dec 2023 10:23, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <ukhdge$2phim$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:16:14 on Sun, 3 Dec
>>>>>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In message <3gsjmihrn2o0vvos598s3pt3p069e8c08c@4ax.com>, at 14:56:10 on
>>>>>>>>>> Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 14:45:15 +0000, GB
>>>>>>>>>>> <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/12/2023 09:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even if I had such a vote, I would not cast it to implement
>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite such a broken IT system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that everybody here agrees with you that the IT system
>>>>>>>>>>>> is broken.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Apart from the annoyance to people like yourself, it must cause much
>>>>>>>>>>>> work within TFL sorting out the mess. And, there's no obvious
>>>>>>>>>>>> reason for
>>>>>>>>>>>> the slow updates of the fine system.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> One word explanation: Crapita
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.capita.com/news/capita-operated-ultra-low-emission-zone-
>>>>>>>>>>> expansion-launches-london
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, you are going on a bit.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed so, but it's all new and shocking for Roland.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This has actually been going on for years, and has been widely reported
>>>>>>>>>>> in the media and in local groups:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/owj4ll/psa_your_private_plate_
>>>>>>>>>>> can_make_you_car_seem_ulez/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "they explained that DVLA doesn't give complete information when
>>>>>>>>>> it's a private plate so they just make the car non-compliant"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's nonsense because TfL got the correct vehicle make and number from
>>>>>>>>>> DVLA, which means they could also get the date of first registration,
>>>>>>>>>> which confirms automatic compliance (only by six months, but one day
>>>>>>>>>> would be sufficient).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If it's been going on for years, then they've had plenty of time to fix
>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I note a recent FOI response from TfL confirming they only update the
>>>>>>>>>> database they check ANPR against "once a month", but failed to say when
>>>>>>>>>> in the month, or answer the second part of the enquiry which was about
>>>>>>>>>> its wider impact on personal plate holders.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As it happens, my vehicle was issued with a V5 a month and a day before
>>>>>>>>>> the alleged offence, and their database wasn't so out of date it had the
>>>>>>>>>> wrong vehicle description. So this is a different type of glitch. If it
>>>>>>>>>> had still said "Freelander" I'd be going about this quite differently.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And part of the issue I have is the asymmetry - they say fines must be
>>>>>>>>>> paid within 14 days (and in my case the notice spent the first 5 days in
>>>>>>>>>> the post), but they give themselves a whole month to issue invalid
>>>>>>>>>> notices.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They also have an absolute deadline of responding to the notice by Xmas
>>>>>>>>>> Eve, and although I accept it can be done online, the default is by
>>>>>>>>>> post, and it's unclear if a proof-of-posting is evidence of "serving"
>>>>>>>>>> the appeal, rather than the date they open the letter (which in any
>>>>>>>>>> event they are stunningly unlikely to do on Xmas Eve, Xmas Day, or
>>>>>>>>>> Boxing Day).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Any entanglement with authorities that have some form of
>>>>>>>>> legislative backing to their position is always asymmetric and not
>>>>>>>>> in favour of the individual. Just be thankful that you've not
>>>>>>>>> been accused of a serious criminal offence that you didn't commit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Actually, TfL is committing a criminal offence because they are holding
>>>>>>>> (and processing) needlessly inaccurate data, and that's a contravention
>>>>>>>> of GDPR.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not sure VRMs identify individuals beyond the keeper and the
>>>>>>> personal data in your case isn't wrong. Just some associated data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "just associated data" is the whole point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the case of ULEZ PNs, it clearly has the keeper's name and address
>>>>>> on, for example, which in the case in question is *correct* (as is the
>>>>>> make and model of the vehicle), what's in error is the data they are
>>>>>> holding which says that the keeper is driving a non-compliant vehicle,
>>>>>> which is clearly not the case.
>>>>>>
>>>>> As I understand it, GDPR requires personal data to be accurate (in general
>>>>> terms with exceptions). I don?t see that the incorrect ULEZ classification
>>>>> of a vehicle is personal data.
>>>>
>>>> I happen to think it is (having discussed this kind of thing over lunch
>>>> one day with the chap who 30yrs ago invented the concept on behalf of
>>>> OECD).
>>>>
>>>> It's at the very least an implication that the keeper is a scofflaw who
>>>> thinks it's OK to drive in the ULEZ zone in a non-compliant vehicle and
>>>> then fail to pay the charge.
>>>>
>>> That?s stretching the point. Clearly the authorities don?t regard the ULEZ
>>> (or tax or MOT) status as personally identifiable information, as anyone
>>> can check any of that online by simply,y knowing tne registration number.
>>>
>> A vehicle record can form part of jigsaw identification of an
>> individual and comes within the scope of GDPR. That is considered with
>> e.g. the anonymisation of medical records used for research.
>> https://ico.org.uk/media/1061/anonymisation-code.pdf
>>
>>> Even if you do regard it to come under GDPR you have the right to request
>>> correction.
>>> So until that?s been exhausted to an unsatisfactory conclusion
>>> I think your assertion that they are committing a criminal offence is moot.
>>>
>> A process which allows repetition is probably on dodgy legal ground
>> despite the rectifications.
>>
>
>So where does the jigsaw of identification end? Almost anything can
>contribute to such a jigsaw, something that spooks and plod exploit.
>
It ends when you reach the data subject. That might be the next piece
of the puzzle or many pieces later. You also have to consider the
purpose for which the data is held, processed or sought; TfL has a
legitimate purpose of determining if a charge is due but not to retain
or further process the data if it isn't. What they (or more likely
"less respectable" organisations) can't do is retain data "just in
case it is useful" for something or use it for a purpose other than
ULEZ enforcement. That ought to permit and require that a compliant
vehicle's details are kept but not the personal details derived from
them which are the next part of the jigsaw.

On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 20:04:16 +0000, Charles Ellson
<charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 18:44:02 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
><usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 13:43:23 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <ukpi9s$nobq$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:27:08 on Wed, 6 Dec
>>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <kt9c10F931dU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:29:35 on Tue, 5 Dec
>>>>>>> 2023, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On 3 Dec 2023 10:23, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <ukhdge$2phim$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:16:14 on Sun, 3 Dec
>>>>>>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In message <3gsjmihrn2o0vvos598s3pt3p069e8c08c@4ax.com>, at 14:56:10 on
>>>>>>>>>>> Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 14:45:15 +0000, GB
>>>>>>>>>>>> <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/12/2023 09:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even if I had such a vote, I would not cast it to implement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite such a broken IT system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that everybody here agrees with you that the IT system
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is broken.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apart from the annoyance to people like yourself, it must cause much
>>>>>>>>>>>>> work within TFL sorting out the mess. And, there's no obvious
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the slow updates of the fine system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> One word explanation: Crapita
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.capita.com/news/capita-operated-ultra-low-emission-zone-
>>>>>>>>>>>> expansion-launches-london
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, you are going on a bit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed so, but it's all new and shocking for Roland.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This has actually been going on for years, and has been widely reported
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the media and in local groups:
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/owj4ll/psa_your_private_plate_
>>>>>>>>>>>> can_make_you_car_seem_ulez/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "they explained that DVLA doesn't give complete information when
>>>>>>>>>>> it's a private plate so they just make the car non-compliant"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That's nonsense because TfL got the correct vehicle make and number from
>>>>>>>>>>> DVLA, which means they could also get the date of first registration,
>>>>>>>>>>> which confirms automatic compliance (only by six months, but one day
>>>>>>>>>>> would be sufficient).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If it's been going on for years, then they've had plenty of time to fix
>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I note a recent FOI response from TfL confirming they only update the
>>>>>>>>>>> database they check ANPR against "once a month", but failed to say when
>>>>>>>>>>> in the month, or answer the second part of the enquiry which was about
>>>>>>>>>>> its wider impact on personal plate holders.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As it happens, my vehicle was issued with a V5 a month and a day before
>>>>>>>>>>> the alleged offence, and their database wasn't so out of date it had the
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong vehicle description. So this is a different type of glitch. If it
>>>>>>>>>>> had still said "Freelander" I'd be going about this quite differently.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And part of the issue I have is the asymmetry - they say fines must be
>>>>>>>>>>> paid within 14 days (and in my case the notice spent the first 5 days in
>>>>>>>>>>> the post), but they give themselves a whole month to issue invalid
>>>>>>>>>>> notices.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> They also have an absolute deadline of responding to the notice by Xmas
>>>>>>>>>>> Eve, and although I accept it can be done online, the default is by
>>>>>>>>>>> post, and it's unclear if a proof-of-posting is evidence of "serving"
>>>>>>>>>>> the appeal, rather than the date they open the letter (which in any
>>>>>>>>>>> event they are stunningly unlikely to do on Xmas Eve, Xmas Day, or
>>>>>>>>>>> Boxing Day).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Any entanglement with authorities that have some form of
>>>>>>>>>> legislative backing to their position is always asymmetric and not
>>>>>>>>>> in favour of the individual. Just be thankful that you've not
>>>>>>>>>> been accused of a serious criminal offence that you didn't commit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Actually, TfL is committing a criminal offence because they are holding
>>>>>>>>> (and processing) needlessly inaccurate data, and that's a contravention
>>>>>>>>> of GDPR.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure VRMs identify individuals beyond the keeper and the
>>>>>>>> personal data in your case isn't wrong. Just some associated data.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "just associated data" is the whole point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the case of ULEZ PNs, it clearly has the keeper's name and address
>>>>>>> on, for example, which in the case in question is *correct* (as is the
>>>>>>> make and model of the vehicle), what's in error is the data they are
>>>>>>> holding which says that the keeper is driving a non-compliant vehicle,
>>>>>>> which is clearly not the case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I understand it, GDPR requires personal data to be accurate (in general
>>>>>> terms with exceptions). I don?t see that the incorrect ULEZ classification
>>>>>> of a vehicle is personal data.
>>>>>
>>>>> I happen to think it is (having discussed this kind of thing over lunch
>>>>> one day with the chap who 30yrs ago invented the concept on behalf of
>>>>> OECD).
>>>>>
>>>>> It's at the very least an implication that the keeper is a scofflaw who
>>>>> thinks it's OK to drive in the ULEZ zone in a non-compliant vehicle and
>>>>> then fail to pay the charge.
>>>>>
>>>> That?s stretching the point. Clearly the authorities don?t regard the ULEZ
>>>> (or tax or MOT) status as personally identifiable information, as anyone
>>>> can check any of that online by simply,y knowing tne registration number.
>>>>
>>> A vehicle record can form part of jigsaw identification of an
>>> individual and comes within the scope of GDPR. That is considered with
>>> e.g. the anonymisation of medical records used for research.
>>> https://ico.org.uk/media/1061/anonymisation-code.pdf
>>>
>>>> Even if you do regard it to come under GDPR you have the right to request
>>>> correction.
>>>> So until that?s been exhausted to an unsatisfactory conclusion
>>>> I think your assertion that they are committing a criminal offence is moot.
>>>>
>>> A process which allows repetition is probably on dodgy legal ground
>>> despite the rectifications.
>>>
>>
>>So where does the jigsaw of identification end? Almost anything can
>>contribute to such a jigsaw, something that spooks and plod exploit.
>>
>It ends when you reach the data subject. That might be the next piece
>of the puzzle or many pieces later. You also have to consider the
>purpose for which the data is held, processed or sought; TfL has a
>legitimate purpose of determining if a charge is due but not to retain
>or further process the
>
derived personal

On 06/12/2023 18:44, Tweed wrote:
> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 13:43:23 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <ukpi9s$nobq$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:27:08 on Wed, 6 Dec
>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <kt9c10F931dU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:29:35 on Tue, 5 Dec
>>>>>> 2023, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 3 Dec 2023 10:23, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <ukhdge$2phim$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:16:14 on Sun, 3 Dec
>>>>>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In message <3gsjmihrn2o0vvos598s3pt3p069e8c08c@4ax.com>, at 14:56:10 on
>>>>>>>>>> Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 14:45:15 +0000, GB
>>>>>>>>>>> <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/12/2023 09:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even if I had such a vote, I would not cast it to implement
>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite such a broken IT system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that everybody here agrees with you that the IT system
>>>>>>>>>>>> is broken.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Apart from the annoyance to people like yourself, it must cause much
>>>>>>>>>>>> work within TFL sorting out the mess. And, there's no obvious
>>>>>>>>>>>> reason for
>>>>>>>>>>>> the slow updates of the fine system.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> One word explanation: Crapita
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.capita.com/news/capita-operated-ultra-low-emission-zone-
>>>>>>>>>>> expansion-launches-london
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, you are going on a bit.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed so, but it's all new and shocking for Roland.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This has actually been going on for years, and has been widely reported
>>>>>>>>>>> in the media and in local groups:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/owj4ll/psa_your_private_plate_
>>>>>>>>>>> can_make_you_car_seem_ulez/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "they explained that DVLA doesn't give complete information when
>>>>>>>>>> it's a private plate so they just make the car non-compliant"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's nonsense because TfL got the correct vehicle make and number from
>>>>>>>>>> DVLA, which means they could also get the date of first registration,
>>>>>>>>>> which confirms automatic compliance (only by six months, but one day
>>>>>>>>>> would be sufficient).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If it's been going on for years, then they've had plenty of time to fix
>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I note a recent FOI response from TfL confirming they only update the
>>>>>>>>>> database they check ANPR against "once a month", but failed to say when
>>>>>>>>>> in the month, or answer the second part of the enquiry which was about
>>>>>>>>>> its wider impact on personal plate holders.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As it happens, my vehicle was issued with a V5 a month and a day before
>>>>>>>>>> the alleged offence, and their database wasn't so out of date it had the
>>>>>>>>>> wrong vehicle description. So this is a different type of glitch. If it
>>>>>>>>>> had still said "Freelander" I'd be going about this quite differently.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And part of the issue I have is the asymmetry - they say fines must be
>>>>>>>>>> paid within 14 days (and in my case the notice spent the first 5 days in
>>>>>>>>>> the post), but they give themselves a whole month to issue invalid
>>>>>>>>>> notices.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They also have an absolute deadline of responding to the notice by Xmas
>>>>>>>>>> Eve, and although I accept it can be done online, the default is by
>>>>>>>>>> post, and it's unclear if a proof-of-posting is evidence of "serving"
>>>>>>>>>> the appeal, rather than the date they open the letter (which in any
>>>>>>>>>> event they are stunningly unlikely to do on Xmas Eve, Xmas Day, or
>>>>>>>>>> Boxing Day).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Any entanglement with authorities that have some form of
>>>>>>>>> legislative backing to their position is always asymmetric and not
>>>>>>>>> in favour of the individual. Just be thankful that you've not
>>>>>>>>> been accused of a serious criminal offence that you didn't commit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Actually, TfL is committing a criminal offence because they are holding
>>>>>>>> (and processing) needlessly inaccurate data, and that's a contravention
>>>>>>>> of GDPR.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not sure VRMs identify individuals beyond the keeper and the
>>>>>>> personal data in your case isn't wrong. Just some associated data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "just associated data" is the whole point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the case of ULEZ PNs, it clearly has the keeper's name and address
>>>>>> on, for example, which in the case in question is *correct* (as is the
>>>>>> make and model of the vehicle), what's in error is the data they are
>>>>>> holding which says that the keeper is driving a non-compliant vehicle,
>>>>>> which is clearly not the case.
>>>>>>
>>>>> As I understand it, GDPR requires personal data to be accurate (in general
>>>>> terms with exceptions). I don’t see that the incorrect ULEZ classification
>>>>> of a vehicle is personal data.
>>>>
>>>> I happen to think it is (having discussed this kind of thing over lunch
>>>> one day with the chap who 30yrs ago invented the concept on behalf of
>>>> OECD).
>>>>
>>>> It's at the very least an implication that the keeper is a scofflaw who
>>>> thinks it's OK to drive in the ULEZ zone in a non-compliant vehicle and
>>>> then fail to pay the charge.
>>>>
>>> That’s stretching the point. Clearly the authorities don’t regard the ULEZ
>>> (or tax or MOT) status as personally identifiable information, as anyone
>>> can check any of that online by simply,y knowing tne registration number.
>>>
>> A vehicle record can form part of jigsaw identification of an
>> individual and comes within the scope of GDPR. That is considered with
>> e.g. the anonymisation of medical records used for research.
>> https://ico.org.uk/media/1061/anonymisation-code.pdf
>>
>>> Even if you do regard it to come under GDPR you have the right to request
>>> correction.
>>> So until that’s been exhausted to an unsatisfactory conclusion
>>> I think your assertion that they are committing a criminal offence is moot.
>>>
>> A process which allows repetition is probably on dodgy legal ground
>> despite the rectifications.
>>
>
> So where does the jigsaw of identification end? Almost anything can
> contribute to such a jigsaw, something that spooks and plod exploit.
>

In message <ukptpr$pkkf$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:43:23 on Wed, 6 Dec
2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <ukpi9s$nobq$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:27:08 on Wed, 6 Dec
>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <kt9c10F931dU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:29:35 on Tue, 5 Dec
>>>> 2023, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>>>>> On 3 Dec 2023 10:23, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <ukhdge$2phim$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:16:14 on Sun, 3 Dec
>>>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <3gsjmihrn2o0vvos598s3pt3p069e8c08c@4ax.com>, at 14:56:10 on
>>>>>>>> Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 14:45:15 +0000, GB
>>>>>>>>> <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 01/12/2023 09:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Even if I had such a vote, I would not cast it to implement
>>>>>>>>>>> quite such a broken IT system.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think that everybody here agrees with you that the IT system
>>>>>>>>>> is broken.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Apart from the annoyance to people like yourself, it must cause much
>>>>>>>>>> work within TFL sorting out the mess. And, there's no obvious
>>>>>>>>>> reason for
>>>>>>>>>> the slow updates of the fine system.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One word explanation: Crapita
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.capita.com/news/capita-operated-ultra-low-emission-zone-
>>>>>>>>> expansion-launches-london
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, you are going on a bit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Indeed so, but it's all new and shocking for Roland.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This has actually been going on for years, and has been widely
>>>>>>>>>reported
>>>>>>>>> in the media and in local groups:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/owj4ll/psa_your_private_plate_
>>>>>>>>> can_make_you_car_seem_ulez/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "they explained that DVLA doesn't give complete information when
>>>>>>>> it's a private plate so they just make the car non-compliant"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's nonsense because TfL got the correct vehicle make and
>>>>>>>>number from
>>>>>>>> DVLA, which means they could also get the date of first registration,
>>>>>>>> which confirms automatic compliance (only by six months, but one day
>>>>>>>> would be sufficient).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If it's been going on for years, then they've had plenty of time to fix
>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I note a recent FOI response from TfL confirming they only update the
>>>>>>>> database they check ANPR against "once a month", but failed to say when
>>>>>>>> in the month, or answer the second part of the enquiry which was about
>>>>>>>> its wider impact on personal plate holders.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As it happens, my vehicle was issued with a V5 a month and a day before
>>>>>>>> the alleged offence, and their database wasn't so out of date
>>>>>>>>it had the
>>>>>>>> wrong vehicle description. So this is a different type of glitch. If it
>>>>>>>> had still said "Freelander" I'd be going about this quite differently.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And part of the issue I have is the asymmetry - they say fines must be
>>>>>>>> paid within 14 days (and in my case the notice spent the first
>>>>>>>>5 days in
>>>>>>>> the post), but they give themselves a whole month to issue invalid
>>>>>>>> notices.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They also have an absolute deadline of responding to the notice by Xmas
>>>>>>>> Eve, and although I accept it can be done online, the default is by
>>>>>>>> post, and it's unclear if a proof-of-posting is evidence of "serving"
>>>>>>>> the appeal, rather than the date they open the letter (which in any
>>>>>>>> event they are stunningly unlikely to do on Xmas Eve, Xmas Day, or
>>>>>>>> Boxing Day).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any entanglement with authorities that have some form of
>>>>>>> legislative backing to their position is always asymmetric and not
>>>>>>> in favour of the individual. Just be thankful that you've not
>>>>>>> been accused of a serious criminal offence that you didn't commit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, TfL is committing a criminal offence because they are holding
>>>>>> (and processing) needlessly inaccurate data, and that's a contravention
>>>>>> of GDPR.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure VRMs identify individuals beyond the keeper and the
>>>>> personal data in your case isn't wrong. Just some associated data.
>>>>
>>>> "just associated data" is the whole point.
>>>>
>>>> In the case of ULEZ PNs, it clearly has the keeper's name and address
>>>> on, for example, which in the case in question is *correct* (as is the
>>>> make and model of the vehicle), what's in error is the data they are
>>>> holding which says that the keeper is driving a non-compliant vehicle,
>>>> which is clearly not the case.
>>>>
>>> As I understand it, GDPR requires personal data to be accurate (in general
>>> terms with exceptions). I don’t see that the incorrect ULEZ classification
>>> of a vehicle is personal data.
>>
>> I happen to think it is (having discussed this kind of thing over lunch
>> one day with the chap who 30yrs ago invented the concept on behalf of
>> OECD).
>>
>> It's at the very least an implication that the keeper is a scofflaw who
>> thinks it's OK to drive in the ULEZ zone in a non-compliant vehicle and
>> then fail to pay the charge.
>>
>That’s stretching the point. Clearly the authorities don’t regard the ULEZ
>(or tax or MOT) status as personally identifiable information, as anyone
>can check any of that online by simply,y knowing tne registration number.

Classic schoolboy error. Just because something might be FSVO in the
public domain, doesn't mean it isn't Personal Data. Indeed one of the
main imperatives of the GDPR (and predecessors) is to ensure data
processors don't abuse such information.

>Even if you do regard it to come under GDPR you have the right to request
>correction.

I have, twice now. But it remains to be seen if TfL will correct their
incredibly broken internal database. Worse than that, they wrote back
and said "Thanks for sending us the printout of our own website which
you claim has the correct data, but we don't believe it".

>So until that’s been exhausted to an unsatisfactory conclusion
>I think your assertion that they are committing a criminal offence is moot.

No, the offence is not keeping your data adequately accurate, and
they've had more than six weeks to do that now. I can't not-pay a ULEZ
charge (let alone a penalty) for six weeks because I can't be bothered
to. Sauce for the goose...
--
Roland Perry

In message <ukqm93$tgtb$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:41:07 on Wed, 6 Dec
2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:

>>> A process which allows repetition is probably on dodgy legal ground
>>> despite the rectifications.
>>>
>> So where does the jigsaw of identification end? Almost anything can
>> contribute to such a jigsaw, something that spooks and plod exploit.
>
>Also Google and Facebook!

Although have given them consent for that. Not perhaps sufficiently
'informed consent', but that's still a concept working itself through
the system.

Maybe re-thinking the way you probably dismiss all the "Cookie popups"
would reduce the amount of consent you keep re-affirming on a daily
basis.
--
Roland Perry